Pour la méthode de cas. Considérations méthodologiques et perspectives générales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour lu méthode de cas Considérations méthodologiques et perspectives générales Cet article vise à poser dans des termes neufs et féconds la valeur de l'approche monographique, de l'étude de cas, qui connaît aujourd'hui un regain de faveur dans les sciences sociales. Il est montré que la monographie ne peut être aucunement limitée à l'approche microscopique, mais qu'elle permet bien d'atteindre à la généralité. Ce point de vue est explicité par des considérations sur l'histoire de la monographie, dans le développement de l'anthropologie particulièrement, mais aussi par des considérations d'ordre épistémologique et méthodologique déterminant ce qui est ici appelé le passage du local au global, dont une recherche empirique sur l'économie francophone au Québec apporte un exemple.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.207 | 0.368 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".